No officials have declared an end to the second intifada, which began in September, 2000. It is reasonable to conclude, however, that it has petered out with another catastrophic loss for the Palestinians.
Estimates are that more than 5,300 Palestinians have died, along with 1,100 Israelis, and 64 others caught in the cross-fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
As with much that deals with the Palestinians, the numbers are not precise. Also, it is not clear how many died as the result of fighting among Palestinians, and how many died while making or transporting munitions.
Added to Palestinian casualties are some 12,000 prisoners in Israeli custody. Added to the Israeli casualties is the one soldier taken captive to Gaza.
The imbalance in the tolls is only part of the Palestinian catastrophe. No less damaging to the Palestinian cause is their civil war, resulting in Gaza being cut off from the rest of the world, subsisting on meager rations, and governed by religious extremists who offer the residents little more than an afterlife.
If the injured are in the same proportions as the dead, that is another component of the Palestinian catastrophe. They have few resources for medical care and rehabilitation.
Better than "intifada," this period should be labeled the "second failed war of Palestinian statehood." In this reckoning, the first was the earlier intifada, from 1987 until the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993. Those accords could have put the Palestinians on the road to statehood, but continued violence and failed attempts at further agreements sent them to the dustbin. The Oslo accords granted autonomy to the Palestinians in much of the West Bank and Gaza, including extensive responsibility for security. Autonomy has declined in the second intifada as Israeli forces routinely enter West Bank areas to seize individuals suspected of violence. Currently a tense cease fire has stopped Israeli incursions into Gaza, and Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza.
We could argue about the numbering of the intifadas as the first and second wars of Palestinian statehood. It might be better to label them the n+1 and n+2 wars, with n standing for all the previous surges of Palestinian violence going back to the 1920s.
The label "wars of statehood" is more appropriate than "wars of independence." There are several reasons to doubt that the thrust of Palestinian national desire is independence. Numerous Palestinians are inclined to absorb Israel rather than live alongside of it as an independent state. And many of the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel are not inclined to become citizens of an independent Palestine. The status of a minority in Israel is tolerable if it comes with health care, other social benefits, and greater civil rights than enjoyed by full fledged Palestinians.
It is also inaccurate to describe these as struggles for independence insofar as Israelis have long wanted to be free of any responsibility for Palestinians. It would not involve a struggle, much less a war, for Palestinians to achieve independence. The problem is that they want much of what Israelis view as their own. The devil is in the details.
The tragedy in all of this is that neither Palestinians nor much of the world (including many Israelis) recognize the realities.
Palestinians in nominal charge of the West Bank insist on turning back the clock. They demand the borders that existed in 1967, and the return of refugees plus descendents to homes left in 1948. Palestinians in charge of Gaza are even more extreme. They would eliminate Israel altogether and immediately.
I doubt that benefits like those will come to a people who have tried time and again to get what they want with violence, and have failed at each attempt.
It is no surprise that Palestinian aspirations have wide support among Arabs and other Muslims. At least some of the Palestinian aspirations also have the endorsement of the United Nations, as well as the United States and other western governments. Israeli leftists signed on long ago. Most recently the widely repudiated but still hanging on prime minister recanted positions held throughout his career and proclaimed the wisdom of giving into substantial territorial claims of the Palestinians.
So where does this leave us?
Pretty much where we were when the first intifada began, and perhaps long before then.
Israelis claim to be peace loving, and now the government ascribes to a two-state solution. There remains a low level of Palestinian violence, marked by occasional attacks by organizations or enraged individuals.
The Palestinian leadership occasionally threatens a renewal of violence if it does not get its demands. Given the record of imbalanced losses, and the inherent distrust of Israelis, those threats do not advance their cause. We know how to live alongside a restive population, and maintain security forces capable of dealing with what may become the next outbreak of violence.
This is the time of year when we should aspire to new beginnings. There may be a new prime minister shortly, but a limited change in personnel is not likely to counter Palestinian intransigence and other stubborn elements of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
We may not be at the end of the n+i wars of Palestinian statehood.
Note: Because of spam I do not allow comments. However, those wishing to contact me should feel free to do so: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
The continuing story of Moshe Katsav is both troubling and revealing. (For key details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Katsav).
No one wants a national president or other public figure with multiple accusations of rape and other sexual crimes. In terms of personal morality, the story is about as bad as it can get, but that will not concern us here.
From the events we learn some things not so attractive about Israeli politics, as well as about the judicial process and the specific charges.
Katsav was the Likud candidate for the presidency in the election by Knesset members that occurred in July, 2000. Shimon Peres thought that he had the commitment of enough Knesset members to win, but Katsav got more of their secret votes. The best guess is that "anybody but Peres" was one reason for some Knesset members to vote for Katsav after committing themselves to Peres. It was not unreasonable to fear that Peres would use the ceremonial functions of the presidency to promote controversial items on his political agenda. (When Peres did win the presidency after Katsav's resignation, he was seven years older and had committed himself to avoid involvement in political issues. For the most part, he has kept to that commitment.)
Katsav had a long career in public life before being chosen as president: mayor of his home town, member of Knesset, and several periods as minister in charge of various portfolios. At the time of his election as president, secretaries in government officers and Knesset members knew of his behavior. Reports are that the police knew his reputation for several years, but did not begin an investigation in the absence of formal complaints.
Among the Knesset members who recognized the dangers, some hoped that the prestige of the president's office would cure Katsav of his faults.
His career began to unravel in July, 2006, when he complained to the attorney general that one of his employees was trying to blackmail him.
It would have been wiser to pay.
The police investigation that began with Katsav's initiative quickly focused on the president, and produced headlines about multiple charges of sexual harassment two claims of rape.
A year later, shortly before the end of his term, the prosecution and Katsav agreed to a plea bargain that would involve his immediate resignation, charges for minor offenses, and a recommendation of no jail term.
The event did not pass quietly. Organized feminists, good government reformers, and plain citizens demonstrated, and initiated a suit demanding that the attorney general issue a more severe indictment. Katsav defended himself at a contentious press conference that saw him shouting at questioners, and produced a photo of a contorted scowl shown time and again on television. He asserted that he had agreed to the plea bargain as a pragmatic tactic. He claimed to be an innocent victim of a media fiasco, and occasionally said something like Bill Clinton's classic remark, "I never had sex with those women."
Against him there appeared in public, with identities masked, accusers who detailed the president's crude sexual techniques: exposing and waving his penis, and saying that I think of you when I am with my wife. Complicating the picture, and helping to explain the prosecutor's decision for a mild plea bargain, were indications that women who claimed rape had maintained cordial relations with Katsav after the rapes were said to happen.
In April, 2008, the high court rejected Katsav's efforts to delay a final decision on the plea bargain. Then Katsav canceled his agreement to the plea bargain, and asserted his innocence. The attorney general began a process still on-going of reconsidering the charges he would bring.
In the midst of this reconsideration, the attorney general moved the file from one group of attorneys on his staff to another group. Deliberations that had taken more than a year among the first committee of attorneys would start again. Involved in disputes were questions of which charges would survive the counter arguments of Katsav's attorneys. Should the most severe charges be brought, and perhaps sacrificed in a trial that would find the former president guilty of severe crimes, but not the most serious? Would the emphasis on the most serious crimes, but with problematic evidence, risk losing the whole case? Or should the prosecutors limit their charge to the claims that would persuade the court, which might produce an outcome not substantially different from the earlier plea bargain?
So far this argument has proceeded in house without a resolution. Some people fear that endless discussions among the staff of the attorney general will produce a decision to close the file without a trial, or to keep the file open indefinitely and unresolved. Meanwhile, the Finance Ministry has denied Katsav's requests for benefits usually given a former president, including an expensive new car and an office in a prestige location.
Arguments about the meaning of law, and rules of evidence, have roots in Jewish law going back to ancient times. The Talmud offers countless examples of disputes about how to fix responsibility for injury or damages. Against demands to punish Katsav for the most serious of the crimes alleged, are arguments not only about judicial tactics, but also about the merits of the evidence.
Safeguards for the accused also have ancient roots. Christians are inclined to quote "eye for an eye" and numerous death penalties in the Hebrew Bible in order to assert that it was only Jesus and his disciples who brought a humane concern to the world. The reality is much different. The Torah itself, perhaps 600 years older than the New Testament, includes provisions for financial instead of corporal penalties (e.g., Exodus 21). By the time of the Sanhedrin, at least 200 years before Christ, the rabbis worked assiduously to avoidphysical punishment. One ancient sage is widely quoted to the effect that if the Sanhedrin decided on more than one death penalty in 70 years it would be considered a murderous court.
Activists remain dissatisfied with the lack of declared justice. Katsav's victims may bring civil suits for damages whether or not the attorney general includes their allegations among the crimes to be charged. They may be thinking of the $33.5 million judgment awarded the families who claimed that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of their loved ones, after he had been found not guilty in a criminal trial. Donors may tire of paying Katsav's legal fees. He can lose a great deal of money as well as a desirable car and office. He has already suffered the shame of extensive media coverage.
The public generally may have passed beyond the scandal of Moshe Katsav. There are multiple charges of corruption against the prime minister. Five other politicians who served recently as government ministers have been tried, indicted, or subjected to prolonged police investigation. Virtually all of the recent prime ministers have been rebuked or fined by the State Comptroller for violating campaign finance laws. There is also the fall out in Israel from the international economic crisis, dire threats from Hizbollah in the north, Hamas in the south, individual Palestinians who seek to kill Israelis with bulldozers or cars, and the looming problem of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
It is the season when Jews worry about the sentence of the Almighty for the coming year. May yours be a good one.
Note: Because of spam I do not allow comments. However, those wishing to contact me should feel free to do so: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
We often know what politicians are saying, and sometimes what they are doing. It is far more rare to know why. It is easy to ascribe motives, but usually impossible to be certain of them.
I thought of this classic problem when reading the headline in Yedioth Aharonot on the eve of the New Year. In what was described as a farewell interview, Ehud Olmert spoke of withdrawing from almost all of the West Bank, from the Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. The headline did not say so, but as I looked for the entire interview I presumed that he meant withdrawal from only part of Jerusalem.
Whatever the details, and they may not matter in the case of a duck as lame as Olmert, he has come a long way from being a government minister for right of center Likud.
From all the reports, he has also put a lot of cash in his pocket during his years in public office. Currently he is serving as a care-taker prime minister, waiting until the newly elected leader of his party succeeds in forming a government, or until a national election. He is also waiting on the decision of the attorney general as to whether to issue an indictment for one or more charges of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and dereliction of duty.
Olmert is now saying that "I am saying to you what no Israeli leader has said before me."
That may be true. It is also the case that Olmert himself has never said it before in his more than 30 years of climbing the political ladder, speaking before party activists and the entire electorate. If this is a new way of politics, Americans might expect George W. Bush to convert to Islam on the 19th of January.
Why is Olmert saying this now, when he seems to be on the way out?
As noted above, we will never know, for sure, the answer to that question. Among the options are:
He has had an epiphany, and now sees the truth that has evaded him all his life.
He has caved in to years of nagging by a left-wing wife and children.
He is looking at the continuation of what is likely to be a lengthy judicial proceeding, that might end in shame or prison. Insofar as some of his former allies have turned against him, or turned their back to him, he may be striking out in anger. If he is going down, he will do what he can to cause problems for those he is leaving behind at the pinnacle of Israeli government.
He is seeking support from the Israeli left, in the hope that it will help him with the prosecutors and judges that he must face in the months ahead.
Olmert says that he wants to learn from his mistakes. He recognizes the problems involved in deals with Syria, but he is willing to accept reasonable risks in exchange for long-term gains in security. He has worked hard for two years in order to bring Israel to a dramatic decision for peace. He is close to an agreement, and will be sad if it eludes him and the country.
Olmert says that no previous national leader has spoken in this way. However, not a few Israeli politicians, academicians, journalists, and other activists have been speaking this way for years. Others from the right have opposed them, and a few from the extreme right have shouted their God-given rights to sit where they are and move even further into what Arabs claim as their own.
One can argue as to the most important stumbling blocks to the old visions. Part of the explanation is legitimate concern, shared by many on the left and in the center, about the intentions of those Arabs who have been Israel's enemies. Only some Arab leaders have spoken about accommodation. And those who do speak about peace have not given interviews parallel to that of Olmert. What we hear from those who some call moderates are continued demands in favor of an extensive right of return for "refugees" and their descendents to pre-1967 Israel, as well as borders of 1967 or even earlier.
My vote for the major stumbling block to peace is Arab intransigence. It appears in Syria's insistence that Israel agree (before detailed talks begin) that it will give back all of the Golan Heights, using Syria's extensive definition of the territory involved, as well as the frequent proclamations of Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian colleagues.
Leaving aside the knotty question as to whether Olmert's interview can advance or condemn further talks with Syria and the Palestinians, we still have the question as to the credibility of his end-of-career mea culpa. It has all the signs of a jailhouse conversion. Numerous Americans accept Jesus when faced with serious punishment. Israeli criminals appear in court with skullcaps and beards. Olmert has not moved toward the Torah in order to gain support. Insofar as the reputation of Israeli jurists is left of center, Olmert may be following his well-trod path of maximizing opportunity.
We can expect some responses, probably heated, from Olmert's colleagues in the political arena. I would bet on condemnation and cynicism from the right, welcome from the left, silence in public from much of the center, and not much activity in the absence of similar interviews from Mahmoud Abbas or Bashar al-Asad.
More promising are the smells in the kitchen. I am looking forward to a good meal and a happy family celebration of the New Year. And to you all, Shana tova.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
You think that it is an American election that is providing headlines throughout the world?
Think again.
Many of us are as dependent as the Americans on who is chosen. It is not just that part of the debate about what Americans call foreign policy: who will sit atop the pyramid of advisors and operators who aspire to change things in places they hardly understand, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Israel/Palestine. The other part of the debate about managing the American economy also affects paychecks and work opportunities in places as far afield as the high-tech laboratories of Israel and India, and all those contractors and sub-contractors in China and other places that make the clothes, medicines, electronic gadgets, and car parts that Americans have to buy in order to keep the money flowing.
It is patriotic for Americans to continue going into debt in order to keep the economic heart of the world beating. Americans, perhaps with overseas advice and contributions, must also manage that heart so that it does not get clogged by allowing people to buy homes they cannot afford, or financial wizards to fool themselves and others into thinking they can profit from the extravaganza.
More than two weeks of exposing myself to American mass media convinced me that a careful analysis could find wisdom being bantered, and perhaps a decent governmental mechanism to discuss the options and make a decision. Most of the time, however, it is too much a spectacle focusing on the issue of the moment with nothing more profound than luck determining who is perceived to have the best ideas, and whether a benefit for one or another interest or another gets adopted as public policy.
Whole days are spent on the crisis of the moment, whether it is a storm, the search for a solution to what is called the greatest economic crisis since World War II, what bank is failing today and which will fall tomorrow, whether there is about to be a debate between the candidates, or later who is thought to have won the debate.
Occasionally a bit of world news gets time on CNN, but it may have to be more dramatic than the sex life of an American politician or murder in a small town no one can locate on the map.
My own award for the dumbest snippet was a comment by Barak Obama ridiculing a one-liner of John McCain about a national commission to probe the sources of the financial meltdown and to propose remedies. Obama called it the oldest solution in the book: appointing a committee.
Of course it is an old solution. But if Obama had sought to understand and contribute to state and national legislatures instead of using his time there to run for yet a higher office, he would have learned that it is via committees that those bodies sort through the claims and opportunities. If he gets to the highest office of all, we can hope that he will use the power to do something for the people of America and the world, and not just for himself.
Before any of you accuse me of meddling in a partisan fashion, I will balance my comments by moaning about the prospects for all of us if the former mayor of Wasilla becomes the most powerful person. She is certainly attractive, and appealing when talking about her family. She may be smart, but what does she know about geography or public policy?
It is not likely that any nation's politics approaches the quality of a university seminar. Or perhaps it is not too many university seminars that approach the intellectual level of a nation's politics. After spending 45 years studying politics in the better universities of several countries, I cannot decide whether the greatest minds, or the greatest clowns, are to be found proclaiming their brilliance on campus, in the mass media, or in the offices of government. Skepticism and even cynicism are appropriate defenses that must be employed while exposing oneself and one's children to governments, media, and the universities.
No doubt that people living in countries affected by the United States-- and that is just about all of them-- have a right to express themselves about American candidates. The right to vote is something else. The United Nations is not a good example for international government. One can argue about the quality of American politics, and the skill with which American citizens debate and select their preferences. No matter how outsiders would judge Americans, residents of the world hardly seem better positioned to select the people who will sit in the White House and Congress.
Israelis do not "cross their fingers." It is too Christian. We "hold our fingers," and hope for the best.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
